Because of the horrible things that he said and all the horrible things his followers have done and continue to do

Sunday, 2 August 2009

It's Not Easy Being Perfect

Supposedly, god is perfect as well as being omni-max. I'd like to take a look today at what that means logically.

If god is perfect, then god can not err. god is completely incapable of choosing something that is not the absolute best choice. Given all the parameters and scale (down to the infinitesimally small) god can always find a way to distinguish between 2 different choices, and therefore must always choose the better one in order to be perfect.

But, there's a problem with this, in that it reduces god to a robot that only has one course of action at any and all times. god really has no freedom to choose anything but that which is perfect. IOW, god would have no free will. The apologists will be quick to tell us, however, that free will is a good thing (which is why god wants us to have it so badly, even though it causes so much suffering). Yet, if god is perfect, god is denied something that is good. Therefore, god is not perfect in that sense and the concept of perfection is self-contradictory.

So, how does this relate to my last post on god choosing his omni-max powers? The need to be perfect would preclude the ability for god to forgo any of his omni-max powers. Further, the need to be perfect would not enable god to willing forget things that would cause harm in others, even if one could argue that it doesn't violate omni-benevolence. This destroys any apologist's attempt to solve any omni-max contradictions by claiming that god could choose not to exercise his powers. If god is choosing not to exercise his powers and it is leading to a less than perfect situation, then god has chosen to do something that violates his perfection, making him less than perfect.

In summary, what we find is that the concept of the perfect, omni-max god is inherently self-contradictory, and so is any faith that is based on it.

8 comments:

I agree with ya. Not only that, but what is perfect anyway? Every act or solution can be improved upon. As soon as an act is attempted, a sentient being can almost always think of a way to tweak it to make it better. So, in my mind's eye, a perfect God would be immobile and inactive because each time he conceived of a perfect act or thought he would immediately conceive of a better one and this would go on into infinity.

"If god is perfect, then god can not err. god is completely incapable of choosing something that is not the absolute best choice. Given all the parameters and scale (down to the infinitesimally small) god can always find a way to distinguish between 2 different choices, and therefore must always choose the better one in order to be perfect."

In your life, very few times is your course of action simply a fork in the road with 2 choices. Typically there are many ways of handling a given situation, and while different decisions can accomplish a similar goal, only God knows which is the absolute correct one that will achieve your goal and His purpose.

This explanation is an amateurish attempt to explain away an in-depth argument. A one legged man in a butt-kickin' contest so to speak.

"Further, the NEED to be perfect would not enable god to willing forget things that would cause harm in others"

This is not speaking about "need" the way you are thinking. It's speaking about the fact that if god is perfect, then god is always perfect.

"In your life, very few times is your course of action simply a fork in the road with 2 choices. Typically there are many ways of handling a given situation, and while different decisions can accomplish a similar goal, only God knows which is the absolute correct one that will achieve your goal and His purpose."

That is correct, except for one (or a couple) thing(s). Even if you have three choices, you can first compare two to figure out which is best and then compare the best one with the choice that hasn't been yet compared. IOW, you can always break it down to two choices over and over.

Secondly, this in no way challenges my argument.

"This explanation is an amateurish attempt to explain away an in-depth argument."

Actually, no it's not. It's a way of demonstrating the logically inconsistent nature of the claims of perfection and omni-max-ness of the supposed Xian god. There's no in depth argument needed when a contradiction is obtained. That is, unless you think you have an argument that actually addresses the contradiction. Do you?